Partly allowed

Henkel Chemicals (P) Ltd. v. G.Hariharan

Kerala HC15 Nov 2016AS/65/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Court allowed the appeal in part, maintaining the principal sum awarded to the principal (Respondent) based on specific credit notes while rejecting excessive interest. The counter claim for damages by the principal against the agent was dismissed for lack of sufficient proof. The suit was decreed at a reduced principal amount.

What did the court decide?

The suit was decreed for ₹1,80,207.05 plus interest at 9% from the date of plaint and 6% thereafter. The counter claim was dismissed.

Henkel Chemicals (P) Ltd. Vs G.Hariharan — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/24TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

AS.No. 65 of 1999 (A)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 436/1992 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR DATED 19.12.1997

¶7

APPELLANT(S): DEFENDANT

¶8

HENKEL CHEMICALS (P) LIMITED (NOW M/S.AUCHTEL PRODUCTS LTD.) POONAM CHAMBERS, NORTH WING 7TH FLOOR, SHIVASAGAR ESTATE DR.A.B.ROAD, WORLI, BOMBAY PRESENTLY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 142/C, VICTOR HOUSE, N.M.JOSHI MARG, LOWER PAREL (W) MUMBAI - 400 013, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, R.TANDON.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M. GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF:

¶11

G.HARIHARAN, PROPRIETOR INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL AGENCIES ANAND, KALADY ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR.

¶12

R, BY ADV. SRI.SATISH MURTI

¶13

THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

V.CHITAMBARESH & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶15

--------------------A.S.No.65 of 1999

¶16

--------------------Dated this the 15^th day of November, 2016

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

Chitambaresh, J.

¶19

The suit is one for realisation of amounts due to an agent from the principal towards commission whereas the counter claim is one for damages by the principal against the agent for misconduct. The status of the plaintiff as an agent of the defendant principal is not disputed and there is also no plea of discharge in the payment of commission. The court below has granted a decree to the plaintiff for the principal sum of 2,14,491/- on the basis of Exts.A2 to A6 letters issued to the defendant. But Ext.A7 credit note shows the commission for the period from 1.4.1990 to 31.3.1991 as 1,80,207.05 and there is no legal proof for the balance amount allegedly due. There is also no justification for awarding interest at 18% per annum on the principal amount found due far above the then prevailing bank rates.

¶20

It is in evidence that the wife of the plaintiff along with one Sasikumar and his wife were the partners of Satya Sai Baba Enterprises engaged in

¶21

AS.No.65/1999

¶22

¶23

similar business in chemicals. It may be true that the said Sasikumar was earlier an employee of the plaintiff or that the plaintiff also joined Satya Sai Baba Enterprises after termination of agency. But that by itself will not prove that the agent has misconducted himself in the business of the agency and hence disentitled to remuneration. The defendant would rely on the dip in business in support of its contentions while the plaintiff has a case that the same is owing to the poor quality of the chemicals supplied. The husband and wife are separate legal entities in India and it is possible for them in law to engage themselves in business and be a rival in trade. Proof of damages is a sine qua non to claim compensation and evidence is scarce to uphold the claim of the defendant put forth in the counter claim against the plaintiff.

¶24

The suit is decreed for the principal sum

¶25

of ` 1,80,207.05 with interest thereon at 9% per annum from the date of plaint (12.8.1992) till the date of the original decree (19.12.1997). The decree amount will carry interest at 6% thereon from the date of original decree till realisation and the counter claim

¶26

AS.No.65/1999

¶27

¶28

is however dismissed.

¶29

The Appeal Suit is allowed in part. No costs.

¶30

Sd/V.CHITAMBARESH,

¶31

Judge.

¶32

Sd/ANIL K.NARENDRAN, Judge.

¶33

nj/15.11.2016

¶34

//True copy//

¶35

P.S. to Judge.

Henkel Chemicals (P) Ltd. v. G.Hariharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Henkel Chemicals (P) Ltd. v. G.Hariharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.a.Indudharan Vs Shakthi Finance Ltd.

Moideenkutty Vs Kunhimoosa

M/S.Crown Maritime India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S.Bachy Solentanche Ltd.

Kuttamassery Chalakkal Mahallu Vs the Kerala State Wakf Board

V.K. Ebrahim Vs Pazhakotu Mayan

Nabeesa, W/O.Late Kareem Vs Nabeesa, W/O.Sheriff